I love my children with a passion, but I don’t want any more. I know this with absolute certainty. I’ve got other things to do, and I don’t have it in me to be a good enough mother to a fifth child. I delight in newborn babies with their delicate weightlessness, the curl of their small fingers around my thumb, but the best thing about them now is that they belong to other people. I don’t want to bear them, feed them, bring them up, be responsible for them.

I don’t want this child.

More:

Two years later, I’m driving upstate by myself. I look down and think that if I hadn’t had the abortion, there would be a baby seat next to me with a small child in it, resting comfortably, knowing it would always be safe because I was in charge. It might be a girl — I would have liked to have a daughter in the family mix.

But I’m not grieving over the absence; I don’t have and never have had a single qualm about not bringing that child into the world.

Absolutely monstrous. Not too far down the line: editors who believe publishing an essay like this strikes a blow in defense of civilization. In fact, it’s barbarism.

@Rebecca Trotter: “If the person you are claiming to love feels hated, you’re doing it wrong.”

Absolute rubbish, Rebecca. When we are sinning, it hurts to have this pointed out to us. We may often self-justify by saying, “This person just hates me,” rather than actually looking at our own behavior. I know: I have done it myself, in trying to defend my own bad habits.

Gene, context is very important. At some point, if you wish to respond to the accurate “If you won’t become Christian, God will damn you” that some Christians hold true, I’ll be happy to read it. In the meantime, your lack of comprehension creates no onus on me to guide you through my posts, which are composed as gestalt contexts and not as individual points strung together randomly… as you seem to insist on reading them. Be well.

P.S. I use qualifiers. They are adjectives and adverbs that modify the bare meaning of the words to which they are attached. You might offer me (and other contributors here) the barest minimum of respect and respond to the qualified statements instead of the bare words. Case in point: Do you know the meaning of the word “oblique”? So far, it doesn’t look like you do.

Erin, judgment – even for terrible sin – belongs to God alone. Not you. Not me. Our instructions are to love and serve. And especially to love and serve the unlovable, which clearly, you find this woman to be.

To tell a married woman and her husband that they are out-of-line for engaging in normal, maritial relations is callous, hard-hearted and in conflict with God’s own instructions and scripture. To show a complete lack of empathy for a person who finds themselves facing a situation which will require enormous self-sacrifice and even suffering despite having done nothing wrong what-so-ever is not an appropriate response of a Christian. Please show me where in your words you reflect God’s love, mercy, grace, forgiveness, etc.

“God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8 That’s the model we are supposed to be following. Another person’s sinfulness in no way justifies being prideful, hard hearted, cruel, callous, demeaning or condemning.

Even if we accept that your words are factually accurate, they are a gross violation of 1 Corinthians 13’s explanation of how love acts: “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.”

Love doesn’t fail even in the face of extreme provocation. Nothing in your words have been kind. You keep the wrong that this woman did front and center with no empathy or care for her as another human being. You dismiss every good thing she has done – including the enormous self-sacrifice of raising 4 children – because of her failure in this instance. Your witness says, “I will be loving towards those who are good enough. If you are in error, I will bring the full force of my words, the facts at my disposal and my own strong intellect to bear against you.” You are taking on the work that belongs to God alone. Do you not trust God to do his job without your assistance? Do you not trust God when he says that we should love in the face of extreme provocation instead of lashing out? Do you really believe that handling this according to your own ways will be more effective in stopping sin than the ways that God has laid out for us?

You have not been called by God to speak with a prophetic voice to condemn sin. A person called to speak dire warnings against sins does not do so because they see sins that must be condemned, but because God has spoken to them directly or through angelic messengers with specific messages and sent them forward – often against their own will. A prophetic voice always reflects the God that it speaks for. Every prophet speaks of condemnation and justice alongside words of overwhelming love, forgiveness, mercy, healing and redemption. Where are any of those things in your words?

Being factually accurate may be good enough for a pundit, but we Christians are called to a much higher standard – the standard of perfect love. You are not even attempting to live up to that standard here. You are using the tactics of the world rather than the tactics of the Christ. Doing so while claiming the name of Jesus is not prophetic – it is defaming the God we are supposed to be witnessing for. People look at us in order to understand God. You are an image-bearer. The image you have been displaying here (along with Rod and many others on this thread) is one that bears no resemblance to Jesus. Jesus didn’t speak out against sinners – he saved his harsh words for the self-righteous religious who condemned the sinners. Yes, sin is evil, but we are told to fight evil with love, not fire.

Part of why I stopped engaging in online conversations was because I found that I was unable to discuss certain topics in a way that demonstrated love towards all involved. I too easily slipped into thinking that my own sin could be justified in service to a higher cause. Perhaps you should prayfully consider if God is calling you to step away from these conversations as well. You are certainly not winning anyone to truth or our Lord with the approach you have used here, so there’s nothing to be lost, but a great deal to be gained for you.

You do realize that embryology textbooks are unanimous in declaring that human development beings at fertilization? And thus the attempt to put a scientific gloss on your lame attempt to dehumanize the fetus fails? You do realize that the attempt to deny personhood to living human beings because of their state of dependency is not only completely arbitrary but quickly puts you into Peter Singer territory?

Fetuses are fully dependent on their mothers. Infants are fully dependent on their caregivers, which is usually the mother. Therefore, fetuses are not persons, while for some reason, infants are. Why? Because Mike says so. So there.

Franklin,
I would buy the dish detergent from the scientist, not the housewife. I suspect I am not alone here.
I am not trying to be contrary, and I do see your point, but my reaction to your example illustrates something that perhaps the Rebecca Trotters among us do not: that minds are not just changed by emotional appeal and “love” but by forceful intellectual articulation and good writing. This is why, I suspect, so many of us come back to this blog.

By the way, it is very unusual for a mother not to feel some sort of emotional connection to her newborn until 3 months after birth, especially in this age of 3D ultrasounds. Not judging, just saying.

Rebecca, all due respect–and I mean this–but I think you’re wrong about what’s going on here.

I’m not pointing fingers at this woman and judging her actions and interior motivations: she shared them. She said she had an abortion, killed the living human unborn fetus inside her, and has no qualms, no sorrow, and no regrets. I hope, for her sake, that she’s lying about that, because the alternative is that she really is the kind of person who can kill her own flesh and blood and not give a damn, which doesn’t bode well for her eternity.

Now, when you write, “To tell a married woman and her husband that they are out-of-line for engaging in normal, maritial relations is callous, hard-hearted and in conflict with God’s own instructions and scripture. To show a complete lack of empathy for a person who finds themselves facing a situation which will require enormous self-sacrifice and even suffering despite having done nothing wrong what-so-ever is not an appropriate response of a Christian….” you leave me scratching my head. Contraceptive sex is not “normal marital relations.” It is deliberately sterile sex engaged in purely for pleasure while closing off the notion of reproduction. When it “failed” in this instance, a human being lost her life. And to say a married woman “found herself facing a situation” is to imply that this woman was too unintelligent to fathom the possibility that having potentially reproductive sex (newsflash: even most would-be contraceptive intercourse is potentially reproductive) might lead to a baby is to imply that women are too stupid to understand basic human biology–something that I find deplorable, quite frankly.

I’m not sure what Bible shows Jesus as not ever being very real with sinners. Sure, He was pretty harsh on the Pharisees, many of whom were only pretending to virtue while secretly living lives of sin. But He was also clear that sin has no place in the life of a believer. To the woman caught in adultery He said two things: that He wasn’t condemning her to death, and that she should go and sin no more. To the woman at the well He promised the water of life, but only after they’d had a pretty frank discussion of her problematic sex life (and based on the woman’s astonished remark to her friends that He’d told her everything she’d ever done, I tend to think that we’re missing some of that conversation). To the merchants in the Temple He showed His anger. There are plenty of examples in the Bible of Jesus making it clear that sin is a bad idea that bars the believer from eternal happiness.

Well, some say, but Jesus was God–the rest of us shouldn’t judge. Consider Acts, and the story of Ananias and Sapphira, or the story of Simon Magus (and that’s long before we even get to St. Paul, who had a few words to say about people who showed up at the table of the Lord despite their immersion in things like theft, sexual immorality, greed, etc.). Harsh words and even (in the case of Ananias and Sapphira) death for serious sin. The point isn’t that we’re all just like the apostles, but that in the early Christian community the idea that as believers we are supposed to ignore grave sin or even encourage it clearly didn’t exist.

Which is more loving to this woman–to tell her, falsely, “Oh, I understand. Children are a burden. You were in a tight spot. I’m sure God loves you which means He also fully approves, loves and appreciates that you killed that inconvenient child He sent–what was He thinking, anyway? You’re fine. Be well and happy!” or to warn her that perhaps He might not take such a rosy view of her actions in this regard, and that she might at least ponder the wisdom of bragging about her long-ago abortion in the national media while encouraging other women to have one for themselves, ’cause it’s so awesome and all?

As Christians, we are, indeed, called to a higher standard, and part of that standard is to recognize that our time on this earth is limited and that our actions have eternal consequences. I can understand atheists not caring about the soul or eternal consequences, because they don’t believe in either, but when a fellow Christian calls me out for doing so all I can do is wonder what happened to the idea of calling evil, evil and good, good?

“I don’t agree that abortion naturally flows from a contraceptive mindset, because there’s a difference between prevention and active destruction.”

I agree with the Church’s teaching on contraception, but it really is a separate issue. The one is rooted in a separation of the soul from the body, the other in a self-centeredness which has murder at its heart. The latter is easier to explain to people, which is why we’re winning the abortion wars, but losing the battle over gay marriage.

“You who want desperately to work out your own piety on and in the lives and bodies of others where you neither share their suffering or the shame that results.”

This is deeply unfair. Erin has beautifully and bravely defended the right of a child in the womb to not be cruelly and bloodily dismembered. Somehow this is regarded as a lack of respect for the bodies of others. This is how the spirit of the age distorts our thinking.

Re: “You dismiss every good thing she has done – including the enormous self-sacrifice of raising 4 children – because of her failure in this instance. Your witness says, “I will be loving towards those who are good enough. If you are in error, I will bring the full force of my words, the facts at my disposal and my own strong intellect to bear against you.” ”

Look, I don’t deny that there are people who do this. I try and do it at least once a day! But I’m not seeing any evidence here that this is what Erin has done. Maybe I’m greatly mistaken, but it seems to me that there’s a lot of judgmentalism being displayed in this thread, and it’s not coming from Erin.

Rebecca, I appreciate your sentiments. As a Christian, I easily fall into the snare of justifying my own pride and anger and contemptuousness towards other people by declaring that the truth must be defended at all costs. This is a lie, because the truth can defend itself, and it doesn’t need me. Father Robert Barron says virtue is the act of training the will, so that the practice of doing what is good becomes first easy, and then effortless. Jesus teaches us that this is largely worked out in the heart. My purpose in life is to become the kind of person who is filled with inner goodness, who automatically responds in love at the moment of crisis. That is the purpose of every human being who has ever lived. This is what unites us to God. And if “telling the truth” makes me a bad person, then I will hold my tongue.

It seems to me that you take this too far, though. Yes, Jesus not only taught but embodied love, patience, gentleness, and humility. Yes, He did not answer His detractors in the hour of trial. But to say that He never condemned sin is simply wrong, and it leaves us with an impotent, inoffensive Jesus – a Jesus who is no threat to the rulers and spirits of this evil age. The Bible presents a very different picture of Jesus. This is a Jesus who said of the town in which He lived, “It will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you” – harsher words than any that Erin has used in this thread! He called not only the religious leaders, but His whole generation, a generation of vipers; a faithless and perverse generation; He called Peter “Satan”! I mean, come on; it’s ridiculous to say that He only upbraided the self-righteous. He spoke out against sin all the time; but He never did it self-righteously.

Again, I have to say I don’t see evidence of the judgmentalism that you claim Erin is displaying. I know that I have a tendency, when I feel that I’m being outnumbered in an online religious discussion, to become defensive and start lashing out with overheated rhetoric. This is our innate human tendency to pride, and I’m as guilty of it as anyone. Maybe that’s what happened here; I don’t know. I’ll let Erin speak for herself. But it seems to me that your own words were unnecessarily harsh and judgmental, whatever their intention, and that your call for Erin to step down from speaking her convictions publicly was cutting, and hurtful, and delivered in a bad spirit. Reconciliation is needed; but whether it happens, and what it will look like if it does, is between the two of you.

I’m not saying the fetus isn’t a “person.” I’m saying that unlike a nanny or nurse, the fetus has a parasitic relationship with the woman who is carrying the fetus. Thus, we can’t avoid the moral question of whether a woman should have autonomy over her body and health care when the fetus inside her is part of her actual, physical body and completely dependent on it. IOW, how far can the police state go in forcing women to abandon that autonomy and carry a “person” that has a parasitic relationship on her own body?

There are certain universal laws that when broken affect life in general .To the early posters who mentioned that God is ghoulish because he allows women to miscarry ; therefore abortion is not ghoulish because an irresponsible women chooses to terminate , that is akin to saying throwing a Jewish person into an oven should not be ghoulish , because some Jewish people succumb to cancer . There are 4 dimensions that we know exist in our universe , the deliberate stopping of an unborn life has grave repercussions for all us . Women also must take responsibility for their own bodies . They yell saying women rights , yet some are completely incapable of getting on proper birth control , they hate men , yet give them complete access to their bodies ( except for rape & incest which is a crime and in that case abortion must be allowed for that pregnancy would be a continual rape to the woman .) It ultimately boils down to responsibility if you are mature enough to have sex than get on birth control . Just as if when you choose to get drunk , you don’t put yourself behind the steering wheel .

@Rebecca: from a non-Christian secular humanist … don’t ever stop engaging; when I read what you write, I remember why I was once a Believer, and why despite deep scepticism about any sort of deism or theism, I continue to read the Gospels.

“human development beings at fertilization”
“your lame attempt to dehumanize the fetus”
“the attempt to deny personhood to living human beings because of their state of dependency”

@Tim: At issue, from a purely scientific point, is what constitutes being “human” and what is the nature of the “dependancy” at issue. No amount of name-calling will change either basic science, on which you purport to rely, or the core philosophical dilemma, which you simply assume but not establish.

Science establishes that a human fetus is a human fetus, and not a lizard fetus. Science does not establish that a human fetus is a “person” in the sense we generally understand that term; to the contrary, science establishes that no such “personhood” can exist without indepdent capacity to survive – which does not come until the end of the second trimester. As to “depedency” – the dependency of a fetus on its bearing mother and that of an infant on its mother are different species. To confuse the two demonstrate either faulty faculty or lack of good faith. My sister-in-law had a heart attack after childbirth – the infant survived on formula and his father’s love (and our collective support). Three months earlier, and the infant would have died. The two are not different in degree, but in kind.

One may draw different conclusions from either point, but it serves no purpose whatever to confuse, assert, and name-call. Other than, perhaps, feeling good about casting stones – I know all about those.

icaursr: First let me echo your own sentiments towards Rebecca. Your posts are a model of clear thought and honest exploration. (And before someone makes the assumption that I find Erin’s somehow opposite to that, that implication is not even on my mind other than to debunk it. My criticism of her is specific to this thread.)

I was right with you until …science establishes that no such “personhood” can exist without indepdent capacity to survive… I know of no such statement from science that passes the tests of the scientific method. Please note: I take your usage of personhood in the specific context of this thread. It carries connotations founded in morality, and I for one would rather not uncover the barrel of worms about what science “says” or doesn’t “say” about morality. 🙂

And this gets a standing ovation from me: One may draw different conclusions from either point, but it serves no purpose whatever to confuse, assert, and name-call. Other than, perhaps, feeling good about casting stones – I know all about those.

I would take the distinction between parasite and dependent to a much stricter place. A fetus in the biologic sense is a parasite, a scientific observation that holds true for every species whose females gestate their offspring until birth. Dependency begins at birth. I would not lable a fetus “dependent”, nor would I label a newborn a parasite… though I’m sure we all are acquainted with family members who can accurately be labelled parasites with very different connotations having nothing to do with biology. 😀

There are certain universal laws that when broken affect life in general .To the early posters who mentioned that God is ghoulish because he allows women to miscarry ; therefore abortion is not ghoulish because an irresponsible women chooses to terminate , that is akin to saying throwing a Jewish person into an oven should not be ghoulish , because some Jewish people succumb to cancer .

You need to go reread what I asked.

Also, it seems self evident to me that there is a tangible difference between pushing a sentient, independent person off a cliff and ending a pregnancy where the person does not arguably exist yet. If you disagree, then so be it.

For the record, I have granted no ground on abortion, the wrongness of it or the evil of sin. Nor have I excused or shown approval of this woman’s choices. What I have done is shown an appropriate understanding of the issues that women face and why people act and think the way that they do. Compassion and empathy are not incompatible with the truth, but the truth spoken without compassion and empathy is simply clanging a gong. On RARE occassions a gong can be a wake-up call to the person who is already ready to hear it. Strange things happen everyday. But mostly clanging gongs get tuned out or avoided. (Hopefully this doesn’t get eaten by the spam-bot, but if anyone is interested, here’s my own take on the message I believe the world needs to hear re abortion: http://theupsidedownworld.com/2011/10/31/what-i-think-god-would-say-about-abortion/ )

This conversation has reminded me of why I have come to believe that Christians need to treat the Acts of Mercy more seriously and actually go into prisons, visit the sick, get to know the poor, hang out with single moms, sinners, etc. It forces us to let go of our ideas about people, stop looking at people through the prism of their sin and see them as they really are. Rod, in particular, would really benefit from getting out and intimately serving those who he is so ready to call out for their sins. As I recall, by his own admission he moves in very insular circles which I believe is why he has such a hard time understanding or demonstrating compassion towards those who are not like him in morals, behavior and belief.

When I did prison ministry, not one kid was ever impressed by our grasp of right and wrong and our ability to argue for it. But over and over we heard that they were willing to take what we said seriously because we listened, empathized and didn’t condemn. They were impressed that we were there at all, much less there with words of love, encouragement and compassion. Every kid there had been taught right from wrong and was well aware that they were condemned by the world for what they did. But that had done nothing to prevent them from hurting themselves and others. Hearts must be won before people will change.

People are not suffering from a lack of exposure to the opinions and moral we Christians have. Everyone is already familiar with those. They are suffering from a lack of exposure to our love and compassion. Win hearts and behaviors follow. It’s really that simple. Trying to do it in reverse (addressing behaviors in order to win hearts) comes from an inflated idea of our position in the universe and a lack of trust in God and his ways.

Erin, pray on it. I am telling you what I and anyone else who doesn’t already agree with you sees – a complete and total lack of love or compassion coupled with outrageous claims for how others should conduct their lives. I understand that may not be your intention. But just open your heart and ask God. I often find it helpful to pray the prayer of the psalmist: “Examine me, O LORD, and try me; Test my mind and my heart.” Ask him to show you if there is sin that you might not be aware of. What’s the harm in that?

I’m getting my embryology from my basic science degree, and my health care degree, and the health care masters degree I will have earned in a few short weeks. I got my embryology from my work at a university hospital, and the study I did to publish in a journal with an impact factor of 5ish. I don’t bother with literature geared toward a health care consumer unless I’m the one writing it and a certainly won’t touch the propaganda produced by people who build bombs and embolden assassins.

You mis-attributed a the quote “You can’t just mix rational points and impassioned rhetoric and avoid looking like a hypocrite.” to myself. I don’t think Erin’s opinions on this matter are rational, but she has done some decent guest posting in the past.

I’ll deal with the consequences of peoples beliefs, on themselves and on their neighbors. I work with fact, not another endless and conflicting interpretations of faiths. I am here to ease suffering and call BS on the assortment of bullies & blowhards I encounter.

I come late to the realization the majority of faiths hold suffering as sacred, something to be maintained and kept in good order, suffering for thee, not me. A passive scourge for those they despise and with whom they disagree.

Is your screen name by any chance a reference to the protagonist in the Laurie King novels? Always on the look out for another fan.

If anyone can show me an example of Jesus speaking harshly to a sinner other than a religious person, I will be quiet. Just one example. “Go and sin no more” doesn’t count. Neither do his knowing, blunt words and ultimately winsome words to the woman at the well. The idea that sinners need to be confronted with their sin in order to be brought to repentance is something we humans have made up – a job we have given ourselves that is well outside of the example Jesus set for us. I can show several examples of Jesus defending a sinner against those who condemned them, but what is going on here has no gospel precident.

Joanna, I didn’t mist tribute that quote- it was aimed at Franklin Evans.

Go back and review your embryology. The author of this article had her abortion at 10 weeks’ gestation, long after the fetus is past “clump of cells” stage. At 10 weeks the fetus is well differentiated and has fingers, toes, and a spinal cord. It looks very recognizably like a human infant on ultrasound. I am getting my embryology from medical school embryology course, my experience delivering babies, and the ultrasounds I have had on my own pregnancy (at 8 and 11 weeks) over the past few months.

The websites showing fetal development I was referring to include “Babycenter” and the “40 week pregnancy” app available for iPad. There are many such information outlets available these days which, as far as I know, take no position on abortion. Pregnant women across the political spectrum delight in referencing these and learning about where their child is developmentally.

“I don’t bother with literature geared toward a healthcare consumer…”

Perhaps you should. It’s always good to know what people are reading and, as one very wise pediatrics professor once told me, you never know what practical knowledge you may glean from them.

(Arg – I hate it when I make repeated posts like this! Please forgive me.)

I do want to say for the record and for anyone who will hear that I know – not just believe, but know – that abortion is a great evil. We have turned on the least of these, the most powerless and the most vulnerable. But it comes not because we are simply evil, selfish people, but because we do not know God. We do not know how to cope with the challenges we face and the choices we have in ways that are good, loving, righteous and hopeful. So many people have abortions because we make our choices in the dark rather than in the light. I am quite certain that judgement is coming on us.

It is not an accident that greed has led us to a place where America and Europe are in decline and our libertine attitude has torn apart the social networks that sustain us. The protests we have seen will be nothing compared to what is coming as our governments prove incapable of reversing their course and the wealthy and powerful refuse to act out of anything but greed and self-interest. This IS a serious matter. I do not mean to discount or belittle that at all.

BUT, it is better to shine a light than to curse the darkness. I would rather point people to a loving God and allow him to do whatever work needs to be done to make their paths straight and redeem them from all that is not of Him. This is why I am willing to learn to understand, empathize and care for the most base, unlovable and even repugnant among us. It is, in fact, part of my own redemption as an image-bearer as well as how God seeks to meet those who have been lost to him – through love and not condemnation.

“”If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.” John 12:47

If it was good enough for Jesus, it is the way I will try to go as well.

Joanna, Thank you! Rod is like a flame to this moth, I am afraid. He frustrates me because he gets so much right – until it comes to actual fallen people who need to be loved. Then he wants to rummage around in his bag of ideas instead of trying to love and meet them where they are. (I am speaking of his writing here, not what he does in real life – that I am not privy to!)

I can usually behave myself well enough in online conversations these days. But unfortunately, I don’t normally have time to spend in online conversations. I have my kids and my own writing/blogging to tend to. But I’m sure I’ll keep popping in. We moths are really dumb that way! 😉

Lovely, another science based practitioner who won’t provide care to those in need because her imaginary friend told he’d torture her forever with fire if she did. So would etiology of schizophrenia and epilepsy be demonic possession?

At least Erin and the OP have the marginal excuse of opining are matters outside their respective fields.

Your statements appall me. It takes a special kind of cowardice to let your colleagues bear the burden abortion provision in this political climate. There going out there day in and out facing people who are quite eager to murder them while your sitting on your high horse.

…Which means that God is sending a lot of souls into this physical existence whose time is extremely truncated and whose chances to learn from this existence are very limited. I believe that those souls who are placed into forming human bodies with the knowledge that their existence will be measured in weeks rather than years are offering their lives for the women who conceive them.

Jesus said that there is no greater love that a person can have than to give up their lives for another. Each of these souls is offering the ultimate expression of love – a willingness to exist in a body which will be sacrificed so that a woman can find a way forward in the event of an unplanned and potentially life-altering pregnancy.

You made several good points earlier in here, and I’m willing to concede on almost all of them. I don’t entirely agree that showing love wins hearts-I think we show love because it is a sign we are owned and in debt to Another, and try to live like him. Sometimes that love gets us hurt or killed. But there really isn’t anything wrong about the idea of showing more compassion.

But your words in the blog…

You’re trying to correct Erin for being harsh, but but meanwhile you are believing in a redemptive framework of abortion, and that it might be a sign of sacrificial love that a baby gives up their life in an effort to guide the woman to wholeness. I’m not even sure what to say about this after chewing over the post a few times. You’re kind of baptizing it.

I notice this in general. A lot of times the conservative believers get rebuked for being too strident, etc. And the more thoughtful of us think on this. But then it never stops at that-it always travels to something more. Maybe that’s why we tend to be so strident-there’s a big fear that one day we will fall into something like this. If we stop talking about why abortion is wrong, one day we will hear from our pulpits that it really is right.

Name calling? Can you point out any names that I called Mike? I did call him Mike, which is his name, but I don’t think that’s what you’re asserting here. I called his attempt at dehumanizing the fetus “lame.” That’s not calling people names. What are you talking about?

“Science establishes that a human fetus is a human fetus, and not a lizard fetus. Science does not establish that a human fetus is a “person” in the sense we generally understand that term;”

You’re right, science cannot establish whether a living member of the human species is a person. That is a question of metaphysics.

“to the contrary, science establishes that no such “personhood” can exist without indepdent capacity to survive – which does not come until the end of the second trimester.”

Huh? Science tells us no such thing. You’re inserting a value judgment here and putting a scientific sheen on it, which is to say, you are doing the very same thing you accuse me of doing. Where does it say that to qualify as a person, a human being must be able to survive independently? How do you define survive independently? Breathing on your own? Feeding yourself? What about people on respirators or feeding tubes? Are they not persons? It’s kind of amazing to be accused of name-calling and assertion-making when I challenge people who are comparing human fetuses to parasites.

“As to “depedency” – the dependency of a fetus on its bearing mother and that of an infant on its mother are different species. To confuse the two demonstrate either faulty faculty or lack of good faith. My sister-in-law had a heart attack after childbirth – the infant survived on formula and his father’s love (and our collective support). Three months earlier, and the infant would have died. The two are not different in degree, but in kind.”

I’m sorry to hear about your sister, but you have done nothing to show that the fetus is not a person simply because your nephew/niece would have died had your sister passed away earlier. This is a non-sequitur. You are the one assuming what you are supposed to prove. A fetus is completely dependent on its mother for survival. That makes it a parasite, or not a person, for some reason. An infant completely depends on other people for survival, and in the overwhelming number of circumstances, that’s the mother. And yet presumably you are horrified by the prospect of infanticide. How you can draw a distinction in kind from two different completely-dependent human beings that are mere months apart in age, size, and development is beyond me, and in fact, the sort of assertion you accuse me of putting forth.

“One may draw different conclusions from either point, but it serves no purpose whatever to confuse, assert, and name-call. Other than, perhaps, feeling good about casting stones – I know all about those.”

You might take your own advice given that your have charged with me faulty faculty and lack of good faith and I have no done no such thing. Here’s a question. Why not define all living members of the human species as persons? What’s wrong with human equality? We rightly don’t deny human beings the status of personhood and the accompanying right to life because of race, gender, or sexual orientation. So why do it with other arbitrary categories like age, size, or state of dependency?

@Franklin: I cop to somewhat fuzzy wording on personhood but plead the quotation marks. Our notions of personhood are, of course, tied up in a cascade of cultural, moral and – yes – scientific knots, and an attempt to separate one out (“science tells us”) inevitably leads to imprecision. And yet …

Could we agree that scientific assumptions and theories, no less than any other of our assumptions, are conditioned by context, even if they expose correct results based on erroneous assumptions? Example: Newton’s theory of gravity and his calculations are “correct” in much of their predictive capacity, and yet the Theory of Relativity suggests that gravity relates to motion and curvature of space than attraction between masses.

This should not lead to a nihilistic “all science is contextual and all theories subject to future revision”, but a measure of caution in suggesting that science is somehow separate and apart from its cultural, social, ethical and economic context.

Which brings me back to “personhood”. Scientifically, at between 25 and 27 weeks a fetus is viable; before that, it is not. Even if dependent on incubators and such-like, an infant at 27 weeks outside the womb is an infact; regardless of whether it has any capacity for thought or action (our moral criteria), *scientifically* it is a “person” because it can survive independently of its mother’s body, even if dependent on machines – and, I suggest, to hold otherwise would be monstrous. Science cannot establish any sort of personhood for a fetus at, say, 10 weeks – it is, at best, silent on the issue, because at that point, scientficically we can only say that the fetus cannot survive outside the womb and is in many ways still “incomplete” – but that says nothing about our moral notions of where personhood begins.

Hence my comment on science and personhood, or “personhood”.

As to dependency, or “depedency” – I think we agree on the concept, even if I used the same word to describe two different sorts of connection. To be sure, even in middle age, I am still to a large measure emotionally “dependent” on my parents – even if this is, againt, as great a distance from my infantile dependency as that was from my fetal one on my mother.

The ends of long threads often either go astray or fall off our awareness. I’m grateful to all the recent contributors for proving that wrong on this thread.

Make no mistake of my intention. Regardless of my personal feelings, opinions, informed assertions or imagined righteousness, this topic is important. While I certainly don’t share Rebecca’s spiritual foundations — I am a modern Pagan, and my “angles” on things are quite different from the mainstream Abrahamic sources — I share her conclusions on a core point: However else one insists on labeling it, empathy is the first requirement of unconditional love, of understanding that leaves room for both acceptance and rejection, and for the type and depth of dialogue that actually leads to resolutions.

Personal note: Erin and I have a long acquaintance via the blogging of Rod, starting some years ago when he was a featured author at Beliefnet. From my POV (and I hope from hers) we have a strong understanding of each other that is not weakened or damaged by criticism. She has offered me her disapprobation numerous times. We both know that the other actually listens when we speak in this medium. When I wrote above that I know that her heart is in the right place, I mean it as truth, not as a polite throwaway comment.

@Dave: And, frankly, I think you misunderstand Rebecca’s blogs. She is trying to make sense of what she perceives to be a deep moral tragedy – for the fetus, for the woman, for the doctors, and for the God who continues to allow such things to happen.

It is fascinating that someone who, I assume, is Christian (you) and is therefore capable of seeing in the Passion the essential redemptive quality for all of humanity, is incapable of enough sympathy (let alone empathy) and imagination to consider that even in the “sin” of abortion, there might be come redemption for both the fetus (and its soul) and the mother. This is independent of what one might think of the underlying sin.

Could we agree that scientific assumptions and theories, no less than any other of our assumptions, are conditioned by context, even if they expose correct results based on erroneous assumptions?

Within any context, icaursr, my respectful reply is no, we can’t agree… due mainly to semantics and logic timing. Let me explain…

Your citation of Newton is one I employ frequently when debating/explaining/clue-by-fouring about the scientific method. I have no doubt that you understand it well. My objection is to how the scientific method informs and restricts scientific context.

It starts with my pithy summation of the methodology (duly vetted by scientists of my acquaintance, I hasten to add): This theory explains this phenomenon today, to the best of our ability under the disciplines and constraints of the scientific method. Tomorrow may bring something — a hitherto undiscovered flaw, better measurement or refinement of data, etc. — that forces us to change that explanation in part or in whole. Newtonian physics is an excellent example of a longstanding prevailing “wisdom” that was proven to be in practical terms still accurate, but under the methodology wrong. The steady-state theory of geology, replaced in its entirety by plate tectonics, is another example.

All of those qualified contexts were and are irrelevant to that process and its outcomes. Science defines and restricts context from the methodology. It does not modify methodology for context. Context is a human construct (as we are discussing it in this thread). To use a perhaps harsh example, science does not care if the anatomist is dissecting a cadaver or performing unanesthetized surgery on a living creature. The goal of that activity remains the same. Of course, the social and moral “context” applies to the condition of subject. It does not, however, have any relevance to the methodology.

@Dave: So you cast stones at perceived sinners to escape your own potential demons. This is strangely, refreshingly, honest. And hideously disturbing.

That’s totally misreading me. The point is more if you aren’t strident and try to play nice to often people see that as weakness, and muscle in to force acceptance of the very sin you are trying to be empathetic about. Or more.

A lot of times people are more worried about playing nice than the actual content of the discussion, and niceness can be used as a straight-jacket to shut down opposition.

It is fascinating that someone who, I assume, is Christian (you) and is therefore capable of seeing in the Passion the essential redemptive quality for all of humanity, is incapable of enough sympathy (let alone empathy) and imagination to consider that even in the “sin” of abortion, there might be come redemption for both the fetus (and its soul) and the mother. This is independent of what one might think of the underlying sin.

Dude, she is saying that a fetus shows christlike love when it sacrifices itself for the parents. And that God puts some infants on the earth only for a few weeks, and that the death of the fetus is there to serve as a wake-up call for the parents to get right. So God is implicated a bit here too, and might be using them to draw people back to him.

She is changing what a sin is into a sacrifice. It’s not. And while yeah, people can be turned god-ward in their sins, to make the sin itself a redemptive purpose is dangerous as hell. It recasts abortion from the selfishness of the parents to the selflessness of the fetus and the knowing hand of God. If you can’t see how dangerous that can be, not much else I can say.

“All of those qualified contexts were and are irrelevant to that process and its outcomes.”

True, but … what the examples of context demand of us – scientists and science-lovers alike – is constant humility and a measure of historical scepticism about both process and outcomes. Accepting that the scientific method is context-specific and that a change in moral or cultural climate, or in scientific knowledge itself, may lead to a change in scientific methodology and, thereby, understanding, ought not be a terribly controversial idea.

“To use a perhaps harsh example, science does not care if the anatomist is dissecting a cadaver or performing unanesthetized surgery on a living creature.”

Again, depending on context – in this instance, the purpose of dissection or vivisection – scientific method might well care a lot. I think Schroedinger’s observation axiom is uniquely apt, outside of quantum mechanics, in the example you provide: scientific observation through dissection does not affect the essence of a cadaver, whereas it changes the essence of living tissue – by potentially draining it of life.

To go back to the embryology example, there is a scientifically discernible difference between a fetus at 27 weeks and one at 10 weeks – and size is not it. The scientifically verifiable datum of “viability” may not matter to the Magisterium, but it matters to science: it marks the passage from one stage to another. In this limited sense, I would argue, science can make a distinction between a “person” and an entity that is not yet a person – a fetus.

Rebecca, this post has fallen off the main page so you may not see this, but I want you to know that I always take the admonishment of a fellow Christian seriously, and will indeed take this to prayer.

But I would respectfully offer you one point.

In the Bible Jesus encounters many people and speaks to them in different ways. But there is only one person before whom He remains completely silent. That person is Herod.

Herod is proud of his sinfulness. Worse, he doesn’t seem to think he has done anything wrong. He wants to see Jesus because he’s hoping to see a sign or miracle, not for his faith or conversion, but because it would be interesting to his jaded palate. When Jesus refuses even to speak, Herod mocks Him (Luke 23: 6-12) and sends Him back to Pilate.

Perhaps when a woman writes to brag about her abortion, insist that she’s not sorry and has no regrets, and is indeed in a celebratory mood about it all, the proper response to such horrific, ugly, violent evil would be to follow Jesus’s example in front of Herod and remain silent and pray, knowing that such a hardened heart will never respond to merely human words either of exhortation or of condemnation. I will prayerfully consider this.

Well, we are stepping over my self-imposed line for the philosophy of science. Your points are well taken, to be sure, but the difference I see between us here is one of logical progression, not principle.

I see the scientific method as the best possible starting point for all scientific exploration. Its standard is two-fold (not in the double standard sense): Do not deviate from the methodology, or you will have your work questioned with increased skepticism at every point (if not rejected out of hand, just ask any science grad student). The exception proves the rule: Those who have successfully deviated had ready to hand a justification that in the end satisfied the point at which the deviation occurred. I recall a cartoon once popular on t-shirts: two men standing at a blackboard, either end section filled with complex algebraic notation, the middle section empty except for “then a miracle occurs”. Science says no to the middle part, unless and until it gets replaced with the rigorous notation found in the other sections. The conclusion may still be valid and correct in the meantime. Science simply shrugs and moves on. Truly, the ends do not justify the means in its purest sense.

Human intuition is sometimes perfectly accurate, sometimes completely fails. Science tells the former to come back later (and sooner) and do the rest of the work, and points to the latter as proof that its methodologies simply must be followed every time. Science does not reward results. It rewards results that pass the test of falsifiability, something intuition can never fulfill. Indeed, of all human pursuits, science is the only one that considers failures to be just as valuable as successes.

I don’t think I disagree with anything you say in your last post. And certainly nothing in your last paragraph. I was, I think, trying to explain how I get to the “personhood” of an infant, delivered at 27 weeks, through science, and without stepping through too many cultural, moral and philosophical hoops. I think one can do that, in a way that cannot be done for a fetus at 10 weeks.

Between 20 and 26 weeks, we are not in the realm of science – or of human intuition for that matter. For all but the most devout or principled or rigid, it is a moral Twilight Zone. All I can say is that as a gay man, I don’t have to make that choice personally, or be involved in that choice with a loved one. I wish I knew what it feels like to bear a child; the only counterbalance to that is that I will never have to enter that twilight zone ….

Joanna,
It’s hard to know what to make of your most recent statement to me, except to note that even most pro-choice physicians and politicians would distance themselves from it. Most family doctors who don’t provide abortions don’t do so because they do not do gynecological procedures requiring sedation at all. Those of us who refuse to provide abortion “services” out of principle do so not out of fear of hell but because we believe that care for the unborn is of a piece with care for all of our patients.
I’ve often heard abortion providers wish that more pro-choice gynecologists would get involved, but I’ve never heard any physician make the absurd claim that pro-life doctors should get “off their high horse” and do abortions. That would rightfully be regarded as an extremist statement.

Mary, I wish to post publicly that physicians in general and gynecologists in particular have a very difficult path to walk, and it is my experience that most of them (if not all) are as thoughtful about it as you have shared here.

People tend to forget — until it hits them personally — that the medical profession is on the line between life and death daily. The last thing any of us would want is nonchalance from them.

…without stepping through too many cultural, moral and philosophical hoops…

😀 The metaphor I’d use there is muddy morasses, not hoops, and I’d admonish you to wipe your feet and remove your shoes at the door.

Seriously, though, that’s why I decline to go very far into debates about the philosophy of science. My feet of clay get muddy very quickly, and I seem to spend days or weeks afterwards cleaning them off.